Nobody Should Believe Me - Case Files 04: Justina Pelletier Part 3 with Beau Berman

Episode Date: October 31, 2024

In part 3 of our Justina Pelletier mini-series, Andrea and Beau pick up where part 2 left off, with the topic of mitoaction.org. They then get into the side story of Martin Gottesfeld, a hacker who did not know the family, but took on the mantle of saving Justina by hacking into the Boston Childrens’ system to pressure them into releasing her. Beau talks about the last time he was contacted by the Pelletiers, Lou Pelletier’s reaction to the media attention, and how Justina is doing currently. *** Links/Resources:  https://www.mitoaction.org/ The Battle for Justina Pelletier: https://www.peacocktv.com/watch-online/tv/the-battle-for-justina-pelletier/5657866397468499112 Join Patreon for a look at Andrea and Dr. Bex’s previous coverage of the Justina Pelletier case: https://www.patreon.com/collection/507935 Preorder Andrea's new book The Mother Next Door: Medicine, Deception, and Munchausen by Proxy Click here to view our sponsors. Remember that using our codes helps advertisers know you’re listening and helps us keep making the show! Subscribe on YouTube where we have full episodes and lots of bonus content. Follow Andrea on Instagram for behind-the-scenes photos: @andreadunlop Buy Andrea's books here. To support the show, go to Patreon.com/NobodyShouldBelieveMe or subscribe on Apple Podcasts where you can get all episodes early and ad-free and access exclusive ethical true crime bonus content. For more information and resources on Munchausen by Proxy, please visit MunchausenSupport.com The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children’s MBP Practice Guidelines can be downloaded here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

True Story Media. I'm Andrea Dunlop, and this is Nobody Should Believe Me Case Files. Thanks for being with us today. This is the third part of our conversation about the Justina Pelletier case. If you have not listened to parts one and two, please go do so. Today, I'm back with the second half of my interview with Beau Berman, the reporter who broke this story. We are picking back up with our conversation

about MitoAction.org. This organization bills itself as a support group for parents dealing with mitochondrial disease, but it also appears to have a strong focus on protecting parents from, quote, false accusations of medical child abuse. This was a really fascinating part of my conversation with Beau. As always, if you'd like to support the show, a great way to do that is by subscribing on Apple Podcasts or on Patreon. You get ad-free listening plus two bonus episodes a month with me and Dr. Bex.

And we also have a free tier on Patreon where we release certain episodes from behind the paywall periodically. Right now, I am making all of our coverage of the Justina Pelletier case free to listen to. If you would like to get in touch, the best way to do that is to shoot us an email at hello at nobody should believe me.com.

And if you or someone you know is a victim or survivor of Munchausen by proxy abuse, you can find help at munchausensupport.com. And if you or someone you know is a victim or survivor of Munchausen by proxy abuse, you can find help at munchausensupport.com. Links to both can be found in our show notes. And with that, here is the rest of my interview with Beau Berman. Well, friends, it's 2025. It's here. This year is going to be, well, one thing it won't be is boring. And that's about the only prediction I'm going to make right well, one thing it won't be is boring. And that's about the only prediction I'm going to make right now. But one piece of news that I am excited to share is that the wait for my new book, The Mother Next Door, is almost over.

It is coming at you on February 4th from St. Martin's Press. So soon! I co-authored this book with friend and beloved contributor of this show, Detective Mike Weber, about three of the most impactful cases of his career. Even if you are one of the OG-est of OG listeners to this show, I promise you are going to learn so many new and shocking details about the three cases we cover. We just go into so much more depth on these stories, and you're also going to learn a ton about Mike's story. Now, I know y'all love Detective Mike because he gets his very own fan mail here at Nobody Should Believe Me. And if you've ever wondered, how did Mike become the detective when it came to Munchausen

by proxy cases, you are going to learn all about his origin story in this book. And I know we've got many audiobook listeners out there. So I'm very excited to share with you the audiobook is read by me, Andrea Dunlop, your humble narrator of this very show. I really loved getting to read this book, and I'm so excited to share this with you. If you are able to pre-order the book, doing so will really help us out. It will signal to our publisher that there is excitement about the book, and it will also give us a shot at that all-important bestseller list. And of course, if that's simply not in the budget right now, we get it. Books are not cheap. Library sales are also extremely important for

books, so putting in a request at your local library is another way that you can help. So you can pre-order the book right now in all formats at the link in our show notes, and if you are in Seattle or Fort Worth, Mike and I are doing live events the week of launch, which you can also find more information about at the link in our show notes. These events will be free to attend, but please do RSVP so that we can plan accordingly. See you out there. Calling all sellers. Salesforce is hiring account executives to join us on the cutting edge of technology. Here, innovation isn't a buzzword. It's a way of life.

You'll be solving customer challenges faster with agents, winning with purpose, and showing the world what AI was meant to be. Let's create the agent-first future together. Head to salesforce.com slash careers to learn more. I have a detective that is an expert on medical child abuse cases who does a lot of reporting with me. And, you know, he looked at it and he said, part of this, at least in the state of Texas, you would be committing a crime if you follow this advice, because it was, you know, and it just a lot of it was just very striking. I mean, having covered a lot of these cases, you know, saying things like be sure to celebrate your child's wins on social media as well as their rough days, because that will be used against you if you don't appear to be celebrating their health. And I'm like, you know, you're a parent as well. Like, is that something that you would need to be told. I mean, it just, it really rang, again, being very, very deep in this and looking

at a lot of these cases, you know, talking about make sure there are other people caring for the child, because if it's only the mom, they'll hold that against you. And I was like, well, that's good advice in terms of just like having people care for the child. But again, like this doesn't seem like something that, you know, it was all very much framed in like, here's how not to get accused of medical child abuse. And I just sort of think about it. If I found a site that was for fathers in custody battles, and the entire focus of the site was how not to get accused of sexually abusing your children, I would have a pretty strong opinion

about who that site was for, you know, and it didn't include a lot of information about medical stuff about mitochondrial disorder. It's very focused on the elements of the medical, of all the false accusations that are happening with medical child abuse. So it's very striking. And of course, when I saw the people pop up in the documentary, I was, you know. Yeah, I think it's, I mean, it's hard for me to comment on without having looked at it recently or seeing this myself. I think, yeah, I mean, at first blow, it sounds like kind of, it sounds strange. It sounds, you know, a bit suspicious. I think, you know, throughout this entire thing, I really, really pushed myself to remain open-minded as much as possible. I mean,

I've seen other situations, let's put it this way. Let's just step aside from mitochondrial disease and from, you know, parental custody cases. But I've seen other things in life, right, where like, certain systems are set up in a certain way that they do sometimes err on one side, or, you know, give judgments predominantly 80% of the time to mothers or to fathers, you know, in legal systems, or just the default thinking in society is a certain way. And so I mean, I could like make the argument that like, oh, I see what they're doing here. They're realizing that like the system is set up this way that it's, it hasn't caught up to the science or something. And you're trying to help people. So I guess the question I would ask, like, so let's just

have the conversation. Let me ask you something, even though you're the host here. Do you think there are any cases where parents are falsely accused of Munchausen by proxy or medical child abuse? I think there are because I think everything happens that could happen, right? Of my colleagues, so I'm part of the Munchausen by proxy committee on the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. And that is like a concentration of most of the best experts in the country and really in the world. And one of my colleagues has seen one that went sort of that went all the way to the courts. Right. Not something where there was a suspicion and then it was cleared up. Right. That's a different thing if there's a suspicion. And like one of my other colleagues has an example that, you know, she worked as a

psychiatric nurse for 30 years and has a law degree and just an incredible expert. Actually, Bjorker, she was in the Peacock documentary. They talked to her briefly. She always talks about this case where the child's ears were bleeding and it wouldn't clear up and it wouldn't clear up. And it was suspicious for Munchausen by proxy, right? They suspected the mom was causing it. And so they did a trial separation and it continued. And so right away they knew, okay, the mom is not causing this. And they determined that this child did have a rare disorder. And in fact, his sibling had died.

And that was one of the things that was a red flag, right? If you see that another, there's been a sibling death in the family, that's also a possible red flag for Munchausen by proxy. So to me, that's not a false accusation, right? That's doctors acting on a good face suspicion and then clearing it up. There's only one case that I've heard about from my entire committee colleagues where it actually went to court and there was a separation. And that's Dr. Mark Feldman, who's a very well-known expert. And he feels strongly that that was not a case of Munchausen by proxy. I can't remember all the specifics of it, but I mean, to say it's vanishingly rare. I mean, and on the other side, the number of cases that all of my colleagues have worked on and that I know about that are cases where the parents were guilty and the evidence was extremely compelling, where they got their children back or didn't face any consequences or both are too numerous to count. And it's a problem of underdiagnosis, not overdiagnosis. And unfortunately, the media, the reigning media narrative right now

is one of overdiagnosis. And in fact, that spilled out into other things like broken bones and abusive head trauma with the Take Care of Maya movie. In that case, there was a whole bunch of parents that came in and I did some digging on some of the other parents that were in the movies and read their police reports. And they found like there's another well-known expert, I can't remember his name, Dr. Schaefer, who is in the 5% of the medical establishment who does not believe that abusive head trauma exists. And he testifies in court that it doesn't exist. So basically, any parent that can afford him can and this Viviana Graham, who was one of the parents

featured in Take Care of Maya, that was the doctor on her case. And so he's had his testimony excluded many times using what's called the Dober motion, which is where they basically decide someone is not a credible expert. So they're going to throw their testimony out because he's just in such the minority of the medical community. Obviously, most people accept that used to be called shaken baby syndrome. It's now referred to as abusive head trauma, but it's, you know, it's the most common form of death for children under two. It's very sad. It's very common. And there's a huge pushback on that right now. And you see, you know, all of this sort of, when I look at this case, you know, I really see the precursor to what's happening now with this really conspiracy theory of medical kidnapping. I'll tell you, Beau, like sometimes people really think I'm sort of

defending these systems. I'm not. Like these systems are are a mess. Like, DCF, the way the police handles these cases, even within hospitals, you know, I think there are a lot of problems. There are a lot of families that are removed from their children unfairly. And I think that those have more to do with sort of neglect cases. And, you know, I interviewed an expert on this last season, and we were talking about like 70% of child removals don't happen because of abuse allegations. They happen because of neglect. And so that's families that don't have resources or they're getting removed because of medical neglect when really that family just doesn't have access to good medical care. And those cases are really sad and deserve attention.

Those are not the cases that people are talking about when they're talking about medical kidnapping. That is really the conspiracy theory that in in a case like the Pelletiers or the Kowalski case, where it's not just a hospital, it's like multiple hospitals conspired against us because, of course, the Pelletiers were reported by another hospital. That's also incredibly common where you see when you actually peel it back, it's like it's not just one doctor that has it out for you. It's not one hospital that has a problem. It's like, okay, so all of these hospitals are coordinating with each other to get a DCF order to shelter your child for what aim? Like, what does the hospital gain from that? And that's not to say hospitals are perfect, or they never make mistakes. But like, I think there is this really strong

narrative of like, the people were difficult. And so they snatched their child, right? Like, and Lou Pelletier, to be honest, he sounds like kind of a nightmare. I mean, he was yelling at people and berating people and calling. I mean, he called the police. I mean, that's what happened when the shelter order happened was because he called the police and said they're trying to kidnap my child. I mean, he sounds like a difficult guy and certainly is a capital C character, as you said. You know, when I talk to like, especially like pediatric emergency room physicians, if they call DCF every time a parent was being difficult or acting wild, they would be doing it all day long because lots of parents act not themselves when their child is in distress, or if they don't feel like the doctors are listening to them or what have you. I mean, that's just a very regular occurrence. And these are, you know, professionals who deal with that every day. They're not going to put themselves through keeping a kid under shelter without strong evidence of abuse, really. Yeah, yeah. All that makes sense. Yeah. whole case. I thought this was a very curious element of the whole thing and was just sort of

interested in your impression of him and what his motivations might have been. I mean, I read the Rolling Stone article about him. I think, to be frank, I think maybe they overplayed him in a little bit of a heroic way, but I believe he recently was released from prison. I mean, that was just kind of a wild element to that story. What are your thoughts on him? Yeah, I mean, I think he kind of comes into the situation out of left field. He was not directly involved whatsoever, had no familial friendship, any connection to the family, to the hospital even.

I've never met him. I have spoken extensively with his partner, you know, over the phone and through emails. And he wrote me a letter from prison with his situation or his side of the story, whatever. You know, I mean, again, so a lot of my knowledge is probably similar to yours in terms of, you know, the Rolling Stone article. And then I sort of suspect that the documentary kind of blossomed out of that Rolling Stone article, as opposed to blossoming out of Justina's actual story. And, you know, the whole Martin Godsfeld thing is like a tangent sort of to the story. I mean, it's not the main thrust of it definitely makes it more like sexy, so to speak,

you know, for a documentary or even a news report. It happened, you know, quite a while or at least the Rolling Stone article came out quite a while after I, you know, had already stopped like reporting actively on this case, the Pelletier story. You know, based on what I know from the Rolling Stone article, this is an individual who felt, you know, maligned by the system overall and by adults and by authorities. There were some allegations of abuse, that he was abused when he was younger. And he, as an outsider, seeing national media coverage of this situation with Justina, without being on the inside of it, felt that she was being wronged in some way by being held at the hospital, ostensibly against her will, or at least against the parents will, for sure. We don't know if it was against her will, it may or may not have been. But and, you know, he took dramatic action, and he just happened to have these bizarrely

advanced skills for hacking. And so as you learn in the documentary, he, you know, hacked the Boston Children's Hospital computer system and, you system and prevented them from receiving donations for quite a while. And they allege that it was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars that they lost and disrupted the entire hospital, could have endangered other children, maybe did endanger other children. And I would probably agree with you that he's cast in a light of a little too heroically, both in the Rolling Stone article and in the documentary, with the amount of kind of attention he gets and sympathy. You know, I think he was someone who didn't have all the information. And

granted, like most people didn't have all the information. You know, I think the thing is like, you know, most people in society, we're not experts, right? Whether it's a local news reporter or, you know, a mom or a dad watching the TV stories are not experts in Munchausen. They're not experts in mitochondrial disorder. They, so you're going a lot as you do in life on, you know, signaling mechanisms. Do the parents seem crazy? Does the hospital seem

legitimate in their actions? Do you know, and you're not necessarily, no one can really draw, I mean, except for you, maybe who's like dedicated, you know, part of their life to this, but like most people can't, and to some extent me back then, but most people can't drop everything and pull up police reports and doctor's notes and this and that and fully weigh it. So again, so that all of that is just to say that this guy became convinced that this 14 year old girl was being wronged, possibly abused by the hospital. The irony is she might have been being abused by her parents. And that's why she was in the hospital. You know, like, that's why the hospital was was holding her is because they alleged that she was being abused by doctors and by her parents volition. And he took this extreme

action, which, you know, ended up becoming very, uh, maybe salacious is the wrong word, but it was just very, like very odd. The whole, the whole story of Martin Godsfeld was like unbelievable. It was like something that if it was in a Hollywood movie,

you would be like, well, this is corny. This is stupid. This doesn't even make sense. Like, like too much, too much,

like not even a thread line connecting this, like that, random computer hacker who like, went to high school with Mark Zuckerberg, you know, finds out about this and decides to hack the hospital. I mean, what an extreme measure, and really like ruined his life, essentially. I mean, from like an outside perspective, it certainly seems that way, given that he spent several years in like a federal prison. I have also heard that he's been released at this point. So, again, this goes back to like purely selfishly as a news reporter. It was kind of great for anyone covering the story because it gave it this very bizarre twist and turn. If I had a child in that hospital, I would be very upset at this person, obviously. Yeah, I mean, I don't know what else to say about it. I mean, the fact that they, you know, fled the FBI, went to Florida, purchased a speedboat on Craigslist, ended up in Cuba, you know, interviewed by government officials and then dismissed and sent back into a storm, got picked up by a Disney cruise ship, were given Mickey Mouse t-shirts, I believe, you know, to stay warm. And then we're apprehended by the FBI and the, you know, the port of Miami or whatnot. It reads like a horrible, you know,

B grade movie. And it was all, it's all true. I mean, the story of what he did and his girlfriend, his wife did, you know, in terms of with him. So yeah, I don't know what to make of it. I mean, I think, I do think it made for a compelling Rolling Stone article. It definitely made the documentary more interesting. They devoted basically an entire episode of the series to it, which is a little misleading just because this really was like a tangent to the whole story. But, you know, it was one of the more like enthralling episodes of the documentary and of the story itself, because the story really is just about a teenage girl and her family in a hospital. So, yeah, anyway, anyway, it was quite interesting. It's such a strange element of the story. And like, I don't know if the same is true for you, but like reading, you know, David Kirshner's article

in Rolling Stone, and like then watching, you know, the documentary coverage of it and just doing like a little more digging on Martin, like, I really vacillated between feeling some sympathy for him and then just being like, dude, like make one right decision in this whole string of like terrible, terrible decisions. Right. He just kind of appreciated this because I always think about, you know, what motivates people to do something that is an extreme action, especially when, as you said, he had nothing to do with the case. And like they gave some context of, you know, he came from an abusive house. And then also I believe his grandfather was like abused in an orphanage in I think Bangladesh where they were from. And so I was like maybe he has some ideas about sort of like institutional abuse that this really like plugged into. And I appreciate they gave that context. And I believe he thinks he was doing the right. And then from there it's like he just sort of got more and

more grandiose, right? Of like, I have to do this. And then when it gets to sort of the trial for him, and I'm like, I don't really think he deserved to be in prison for 10 years, which is what I believe he served in the end. But then he's completely unrepentant in court, and he's saying he's going to do it again. So I was like, well, that's just not the move, buddy. Like they're not going to, you know. And I think he really got a bit high on the idea of being the savior of Justina Pelletier in a way that like, I'm like, you know, this behavior is actually sort of concerning because you seem like you don't have any concept of maybe why you shouldn't have done this. So yeah, he's a curious character. Starring Kaley Cuoco and Chris Messina. The only investigating I'm doing these days is who shit their pants. Killer messaged you yesterday?

This is so dangerous. I gotta get out of this. Based on a true story. New season premieres tonight at 9, Eastern and Pacific. Only on W. Stream on Stack TV. Playoff football is here with BetMGM. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day.

With a variety of exciting features, BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions Must be 19 years of age or older, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600 BetMGM operates

pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario Have you kept in touch with the Pelleteers 531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Have you kept in touch with the Pelleteers at all? Do you hear from them at all? I do not, you know, make any effort to actively keep in touch with anybody who I've ever covered, you know, as a subject of a news story. Well, active or passive efforts, I would say. That being said, I have received, yeah, some like outreach from the family over the years. And mostly it's been essentially like attempts to alert me of, you know, something that's,

to something that's going on in their situation or with Justina and basically seek like either counsel or help drumming up more media coverage. And I've just, you know, tried to politely let them know that I'm no longer like a practicing, you know, news reporter. I mean, not really a practicing journalist either at this point, although I, you know, do have ambitions of releasing a book on this topic of like their case, you know, specifically. But yeah, so they've reached out a couple times, not anytime recently. Last time was probably three or four years ago, which, you know, even that being said, was a long time after they had known me to be in their life, so to speak, as a journalist. But and that's much closer to like when their court case was happening.

So that was closer when the court case was happening. That's correct. Yeah, I mean, one thing I'll say is that, you know, they had a lot of conviction to the very end that they would, you know, be exonerated in their civil trial, which they were not. Or not exonerated, but like, you know, because they were never like really charged the crime, but that they would be victorious. Yeah, like metaphorically be exonerated. We'll put it that way in their civil trial, which they were not. They, you know, I think Martin Gottsfeld was almost the definition of conviction, you know, in conviction, someone could be convicted towards something in a good way or, you know, whether it's a good ideal or moral or bad one. And, you know, people can make up their own minds about, like you said, about, you know, whether he's a sympathetic character or an evil character and all of this. If one thing he did not lack conviction and that, you know, to the point where he clearly deeply inside, well, it seems believes in what he did and stands by it. And, you know, like you said, says he would do it again. And that's someone who believes deeply in what, you know, what they believe in for better or worse. Right.

But, yeah, so I haven't really heard from the family any time recently, a few years ago. And to me, it just spoke to the fact that they still did not have any sense of like boundaries or like sort of the way things this or not, I don't think it ever came up, was that towards the very end of my coverage of the case, and right before Justina came home in June of 2014, the last couple months, the Pelletiers out of nowhere had this advisor who came into the picture. And I'm actually blanking on his name right now. I have it in my notes. And he was just sort of this quiet quiet behind the scenes advisor is probably the best word to call him or counsel. He was not an attorney. And I don't remember how they found him, how he came into the picture, why they trusted him so much. But he would be around like during interviews, he would be at their house sometimes, he would call me and like start telling me things. And he basically felt like a like a spokesperson, you know, like a PR person, public relations. And he was pretty like

charming, you know, pretty, like seemed relatively savvy, and somewhat like charming, so to speak. And that's probably the mark of a good PR person. But one of the strangest things is, as it was all wrapping up, and I was basically done covering it, like, I think I told them at one point, like, okay, like, you can stop calling me like, I'm no longer reporting on this. So you're kind of doing it for no reason. At this point, I was like, I am going to write a book about this, I hope to. But other than that, there's no real reason to like, be calling me so much. And I remember him saying, Well, do you want me to act as your literary agent? And I was like, I was like, that would be like, wholly inappropriate, given that you're completely biased in this. Number two, are you a literary agent? And he was like,

no, but I own a publishing company or something to that effect in Boston. He's like, I know what they do, I can basically do it. And it was just very strange to me. So that was a whole thing. You know, some other red flags about the whole situation were some of the people, you know, the family got involved with who, to me, just didn't seem like very intelligent politicians, I'll put it that way, you know, whether it was the Mike Huckabees of the world, or the Michelle Bachman's, they just didn't strike me as the most logical or intelligent politicians, but they definitely glommed onto the case and, you know, made the family feel special and heard which, and that was one of the things that they so, so often to me, honestly, being on like,

to some extent, the inside of like, well, just being inside their house and getting to know them to some extent was that they just didn't strike me as nefarious. Like as much as I wanted to find that smoking gun of like, oh my God, they're doing this on purpose. They're terrible people. And maybe, you know, if Munchausen is a psychological condition, then maybe there would never be that, you know, smoking gun, or maybe it wouldn't manifest as being done on purpose. But they mostly just seemed inept, like kind of like they had no one to talk to and no one would listen to them. And they were just kind of clueless about a lot of things. And that's my hunch. My assumption was like, just based on like who I saw that they sought for counsel and accepted as their sort of leaders throughout this whole saga, it seemed like somebody who was just desperate for like attention.

And that probably fits in with, you know, a symptom of, you know, a marker of Munchausen, but, you know, desperate for attention, but then also like just looking for guidance, you know, like and not sure who to go with and just accepting whoever showed up at their door for help. Yeah. And just sort of chaotic sounds like. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, do you know anything about how Justina is doing today after all of this? You know, so I think at some point, like years ago, after I was done covering the case, like

maybe one of Justina's sisters added me as like a Facebook friend. And I think I accepted the friend request thinking like, this is probably harmless, because I'm no longer involved in this case. And if I'm going to write a book about it, it probably helps me to, you know, keep some contact with them, I guess. I've, I've seen like a few photos of her over the past few years, but I do not know how she's doing specifically. And I haven't had like, any communication with them for a few years, you know, outside of like a phone call a few years ago where they called me and talked for a while, but I don't even remember, you know, the nature of it really. So no, I don't know. I mean, I know that she, my understanding is she's alive and that she is living with the family. I believe, I don't know that for sure. I vaguely remember seeing some like photos of her on horses again. Yeah. So yeah, I mean, I gather she had a stroke a couple of years ago that then

led to some more debilitating stuff. And I believe, I believe it was since the trial that she had her colon removed. So she's had some pretty serious health stuff since she's been back with her family. And I mean, I certainly think, you know, one of the things that struck me that came out during the trial when Lou was describing this situation to the media and one of the things that took off, and I think one of the things that sort of snagged Marty Gottsfeld was this idea that like she was being tortured there or she was debilitating. You know, she was really like backsliding while she was at Boston Children's. And, you know, what we figured out

when they were able to testify was that actually that was one of the longest periods in her life that she had not been extremely heavily medicated and didn't undergo any invasive procedures. And that to me is very striking because that's a true separation test, which is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence you can have in these cases. And also, I think there were just a couple of details when they were talking about doing her like occupational therapy while she was there, because that's, you know, if you suspect someone has somatoform disorder or conversion disorder, I think they're pretty similar, if not the same thing where, yeah, it's the physical manifestations of a psychological condition, is they were describing that she

couldn't brush her teeth. They were having to reteach her to brush her teeth. And I just thought, like, that's very striking for a 15-year-old. Like, again, how do you have a 15-year-old that is ice skating at one point can't brush their teeth. They didn't really talk that much about sort of her arms or anything. And so I just, those details just really, really stuck with me. I worry about, I worry about her, I guess is my last sort of. Yeah, yeah. I mean, just on the point of the teeth brushing and stuff like that. I mean, you know, one thing I noticed from the get-go

was how like infantilized she was in her demeanor. I mean, I'd never met her until the day she came home. But just through photographs and stories and things they said, she was very like, I think that's a word infantilized, you know, like, like an infant, you know, like very treated like a baby and like acted like a child, you know, like someone who was not 14. And now she is what in her early 20s. And I don't know about her life right now. I think it is extremely like striking and, you know, suspicious that she's had this stroke and the colon removed, if that's the case, you know, or another major medical intervention, whatever it is, since coming home from the hospital. I think that was first of all, sad for her, number one, but number two, doesn't bode well in terms of the parents making a case that, you know, this was all on the hospital. And this was all Boston Children's fault and bad doctors and some secret plan to research or

whatever they accuse them of. It doesn't look good, right? Like you said, the fact that she had at least some semblance of stability in her health while she was there in the hospital, comes home and then has these major things that she's undergone. And so I think it's like worth discussing, you know, she came back home. So, number one, why did they ever let her go back home? This is just me playing like devil's advocate, like just thinking this through. Not again, like I literally have no stake in this, but I'm just wondering, like, why did they let her go home? You know, could have been partially my fault, you know, media pressure, I guess. But, you know, we've been covering this for a long time and would present, you know, many sides of it, even people

who said, you know, even evidence indicating that maybe she should be in the hospital. So I'm just wondering, why was she let go to begin with to go back home? And then furthermore, this is public, like, you know, that she's had this stroke, and it was in the docu series. I've heard some of this stuff, which I hadn't recalled until you said it. But now it reminds me of that. So if that's the case, if she had a colon removed, you know, what doctors doing that willing to do that number one without like asking a lot of questions and number two why haven't officials stepped in because it's not that big of a secret if we all know about it it was in a docu-series to

possibly take custody i mean now she's an adult so i guess that's part of the issue but there's still such a thing as like abusing somebody right whether they're a child or an adult or someone like being held captive you know whatever, whatever you want to call it, maybe it's a lot harder. Maybe that's the answer to my own question. Once the person's an adult, you know, maybe the last opportunity to intervene would have been when she was a teenager before she turned 18. And maybe now it's too late. Anyway, these are all just questions I have, you know, now that I'm not directly involved in this. And yeah, it's very sad and or, you know, and simultaneously kind of fascinating of what's going on now at this juncture. And

is anybody looking out for her, you know, if assuming the parents aren't, which maybe they are, but like, if they're not doing the right things for her, then is anybody out there able to advocate for her? Yeah, I mean, it's certainly complicated. And I have many of those same questions. And, you know, I think, from my perspective, from again, and this is just from watching, you know, watching and reading about the case, you know, it does seem like public pressure certainly played into the decision for DCF to get her transferred elsewhere and eventually sent home, right? I mean, you wish that agencies and officials would always do the right thing that's best for the child, regardless of the political climate and the pressure from whomever.

But of course, that's not true. These are human beings with their own interests making decisions. I think that's just the reality. I'm very curious about why there was never a police investigation, because certainly something that meets this level and where you have a child who's sheltered for that long, there certainly should have been a police investigation. And to my knowledge, there wasn't. So that's like a whole other question, right? Because custody is one thing, but there's all kinds of things that you can find out in a police investigation that you can't in DCF and vice versa. So there always should be both

working together. I want to tell you about a show I love, Truer Crime from Cilicia Stanton. My favorite true crime shows are the ones where I feel like the creator has a real stake in what they're talking about. And this is definitely the case with Cilicia, who got interested in covering crime because, like many of us in this genre, she experienced it. In each episode of the show, Cilicia brings a personal, deeply insightful lens to the crime that she covers, whether it's a famous case like the Manson murders or Jonestown, or a lesser-known case that needs to be heard, like the story of a modern lynching. She covers these stories with a fresh and thoughtful lens, helping listeners understand

not just the case itself, but why it matters to our understanding of the world. Her long-awaited second season is airing now, and the first season is ready to binge. So go check out True or Crime with Cilicia Stanton wherever you get your podcasts. If you've been listening to this show for a while, you know that I have very strong feelings about what is and is not responsible true crime content. Maybe you've heard me make some pointed comments about the producers of a certain film, or perhaps you've heard one of my dozen or so rants about a certain journalist whose name rhymes with Schmeichel and Bogg. And if you've been with me for a while, you'll also

know that getting Nobody Should Believe Me on the air was quite the roller coaster. Podcasting is just the wild west, y'all. And these experiences are what led me to launch my new network, True Story Media, where we are all about uplifting true crime creators, doing the work, and making thoughtful, survivor-centric shows. And I could not be more thrilled to announce our very first creator partner, You Probably Think This Story's About You. The first season of this enthralling show from breakout creator Brittany Ard took podcasting by storm in 2024. Zooming to the number one spot in the charts on Apple and Spotify as Brittany revealed the captivating story of a romantic deception that upended her life and traced the roots of her own complicated personal history that led her there.

Brittany is back in 2025 with brand new episodes, this time helping others tell their own stories of betrayal, heartache, and resilience. If you love Nobody Should Believe Me, I think you will also love You Probably Think This Story's you, for its themes of deception, complex family intrigue, and its raw, vulnerable storytelling. You can binge the full first season and listen to brand new episodes each week by following the show on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find it at the link in our show notes. That's something I've always wondered too, you know, be it back in 2012 or 13 or 14 or 15 any of those years um or even now ish you know is it I don't know if that's possible but yeah I've just wondered why if there's people out there who you know I mean there's certainly

enough evidence that well strikes me as something that you know potentially there could be cause to look into it it's it's a tricky thing I mean it's not like a situation where, you know, she comes into the ER with like a broken facial bone and it's like, oh, this is abuse. You know, this whole medical child abuse allegations are different in that people aren't used to spotting them. They are a gray area, you know, appear that way. And so, I mean, you know more about it than I do, but complicated to investigate. And like you said, a lot of these fall back on agencies who, you know, evaluate things somewhat politically. Do we want to get involved? Is she at an immediate risk of death or immediate harm? Yeah, it's a big question, though, is like, if these parents were being

accused of medical child abuse, and that's a really big question that goes back to 2013. Why were they not investigated criminally? And I say that as someone who, you know, maybe they would have been exonerated, right? Like maybe it never would have amounted to any charges, or maybe there would have been charges and they would have been found not guilty. Or maybe a police investigation could have unearthed some speculation here, but something in their home that indicated, oh, wait a minute, this definitively, you know, a note to themselves or, you know, a diary entry, whatever, you know, something that would have indicated more clear cut one way or the other, either innocence or guilt. And that never happened.

And I do wonder why. The reality is there are many places that don't understand that it's a crime. They see it as, you know, as you said, like there's a huge misconception about this being primarily a mental illness question. And while there is an underlying diagnosis in the DSM, I don't think it's particularly helpful. I think we need to focus on the fact that it is a crime and it's not, you know, as this kind of came up before when you were talking about Linda and Lou. And I mean, Lou is very fascinating to me because I'm always interested to know how fathers, 96% of Munchausen by proxy perpetrators are mothers. And I'm always interested to know how fathers react. And this is a case where a father like really doubled down, tripled down, really made it also his business to sort of defend the family for whatever reasons he had for doing that. And it's not a situation where someone's confused

about what they're doing. They are aware of their behavior. It's characterized by intentional deception. So it's very, very separate from like a parent who is anxious and who gets a hold of a doctor that gives them advice that they take sort of in good faith. And there are these, or someone that is having, you know, suffering from postpartum psychosis and is having actual delusions about something happening to their children. Those things happen also. They're just very, very distinct from this form of abuse, which is why I think it's so important to focus on the fact that it is abuse. Yeah, that's interesting.

I didn't know that, actually. I'll admit that. regarding Lou Pelletier, Justina's father, based on my experience, you know, around him and being around the family is that he did really seem out of the entire family the most to enjoy the attention that came from the media coverage. And he would, you know, kind of chuckle about like, oh, you know, Megyn Kelly, I mean, this is the bright lights, this is Broadway, this is New York City, you know, type of thing, you know, in one breath, and the next breath, you know, be talking about, you know, how angry he was about what was happening to his daughter. I mean, it seemed like somewhat plausible that someone could like reasonably act that way. But it was like a little

bit weird to me that, you know, in one breath, he was really sad and angry. In the next breath, he was like excited about the bright lights and Megyn Kelly. And I mean, I got the sense that he was a big like possible Fox News viewer. And so that's why he was so excited. But like another time, I remember being in an elevator at the TV, my TV station coming up to do like a follow up interview. And he was like, you see this phone number right here? And I said, Oh, who is that? And he was showing me like his phone contact, you know, list. And he was like, that's Alan Dershowitz, big attorney, you ever heard of him? And I was like, I have. He was like, that's it's right here in my Rolodex. You know, I just had a call with him earlier today. So there was something about him that, you know, liked the cause celebrity, you know, of the ordeal, which was like a little strange, because like, if you were, you know, truly concerned about your child, I think you either would number one, not care about any of that. Or two, you would secretly like internally care, but kind of hide it. Like, you'd be like, Oh, this is cool. But like,

I don't want to show that because I'll look like a crazy person if I'm excited about the attention I'm getting. So that really struck me. Now, Linda didn't really seem to care that much about the attention. She was always like sobbing or like seemed really shaken and like distressed and just emotional. Sometimes she would say something like, oh, that's a really big deal. You know, we're going to be on Dr. Phil. Can you believe it? But she was much less so concerned about celebrity, about attention. But Lou, very concerned about it, very like excited about it. But I didn't know what to make of it because sometimes it just seemed like kind of chummy as if I was like, I don't even know how to put it like, like a neighbor or a friend or

something who he would brag to about like, it just, yeah, I don't know. It seemed more like oblivious to like how this made him look then like, again, nefarious or like, I didn't know it was another very odd wrinkle to the whole situation. Yeah, I mean, and I think we can leave room for the fact that parents that are in a situation like this, you mean, and I think we can leave room for the fact that parents that are in a situation like this, you know, and I also am in the position of talking to, you know, most of the people I talk to, I'm talking to them about the very worst thing that ever happened to them in their lives. And I'm immensely like admiring of people that are vulnerable enough to share their story publicly. I think that can help other people. I think that that can really help educate. I think all kinds of good things that can come from that.

And I think it can feel very validating to have someone listen to you. And certainly, if you're a Fox News lover, having Megyn Kelly validate and listen to your story could certainly like, I think anyone can understand that even if it's bad circumstances, that could feel good. And you're right. It's a little it's a little odd. And I think to, you know, to the degree that you're like Lou did come across as like pretty ready for his moment in the spotlight. Like and then that was a little. Yeah, it was a little off putting.

It was a little off putting. You hit the nail on the head there. And that's really what I chalked it up to was that this was like extreme validation for them after months. Because sometimes people I don't share about the backstory or they don't know is that this happened initially in February of 2013. I didn't walk into their lives as a news reporter until August of 2013. So six months had gone by of no validation, essentially. And, you know, I was one of the first people who just wouldn't even listen to them and like, take notes on what they were saying at a bare minimum. So and then, you know, the fact that I worked at a Fox affiliate, I think,

you know, was something they were really excited about just from like a personal standpoint. So yeah, I think you're exactly right. It was extreme validation. And simultaneously, it was still a little weird of just how excited he was. But that's really how I felt about a lot of this whole situation was that... And again, I don't want to dumb it down to do both sides-ism necessarily, because I'm aware that can be problematic. But I will say that I'm a firm believer that two things can be true at once, if not three, if not four. And I think society a lot of times loses sight of that. This was one of those examples where it was simultaneously understandable that they felt validated and he felt excited

because his like, favorite, you know, news network was covering his story, his situation. But it was also really weird. Yeah. And I always worry specifically where this plays in with Munchausen by proxy cases in particular, because attention is such a huge part of the motivation for doing in place. And I've seen some very, what I consider really unethical reporting on this topic, not the pelleteers specifically. I think actually most of the reporting, I mean, Boston Globe did a series on this that was very well balanced as well. But, you know, more recent cases like Mike Hicks and Boggs Do No Harm series, where they are really, to my mind, playing into the perpetrator's narrative. And again, I say perpetrator because I've looked into a bunch of these cases, you know,

way too strongly, right? And the risk that you can take is that you are actually becoming part of the abuse. If you are too strongly coming down on the side of the perpetrator when the evidence saying something else, then you're becoming part of the exploitation of those children. And especially, you know, you see some of these news articles with a whole bunch of pictures of the kids in the hospital. And like, I think there's some really horrifying media coverage on this topic. That's all just to say, I really appreciated your coverage on this topic. And thank you so much for coming in to talk to me about it. Is there

anything that I should have asked you that I didn't or just anything else you want to say about the case? Well, I guess a final thought is that just in response to what you had just said was that can be problematic if especially if like a lot of local news reporters and stations are not given the time to delve into something appropriately. And so if they do a one-off story about a local girl, tonight, a local girl is in the hospital accused, you know, and her family says it might not, you know, it's the hospital's fault. And then they never follow up on it, right? And, you know, that can be super problematic. You know, looking back on it, I think that, you know, the coverage that I did was fair and reasonable, you know, given the information that we were able to obtain.

And, you know, we went pretty that we were able to obtain. And, you know, we went pretty far to try to flush it out as much as possible. But I can certainly envision instances where, you know, a one off or even like just two stories are done. I mean, we did like, over 30 or 40 in a row, you know, for example, with the Pelletier case, the first conversation I had with them, and I started googling like their situation, like this must have been covered already, and saw that they were doing like a fundraiser for Justina and had like little like Livestrong style like bracelets for her with butterflies on them. And it struck me as like very strange. Like if she was kidnapped, so to speak, why would you just be doing like this little fundraiser

that felt kind of very lighthearted and fun, so to speak. And so I guess what I'm trying to say is that if a TV station or newspaper covered that without doing enough research, it could be misleading and potentially damaging. I agree with that. And so, yeah, I do think that journalistic coverage of these types of cases does deserve as much research as possible and an open mind, but also the willingness to not engage in false equivalency. And again, I don't think that my coverage did that. And I think perhaps if I covered it 10 years later with the availability of more social media and other things, it might

look a little different. But again, I think part of the issue on this too, and the issue with many news stories is that people are not necessarily inherent experts in the matter they're covering. So they're, you know, as a reporter, you're kind of becoming a mini expert on something very quickly, as best as you can, and going, you know, trying to present as much fact or just information as you can, that's that's vetted and true on a micro level, but you might not be getting into like to the macro issues of the situation as much as you possibly could. So yeah, it was nice to see the documentary done on this case.

And I do think it was something that was quite an important case and it remains to be seen what's gonna end up happening with Justina's life. Well, thank you so much for being with us, Beau. And do keep me posted on your book. I don't know if you know this, but my whole background is in book publishing and I'm an author myself. So I'd be happy to talk to you about that and would just love to hear. And if

that's coming out, then we'll have you back on the show. It would certainly be interesting to our audience. Yeah. Thanks a lot for your time and having me on the podcast. Nobody Should Believe Me Case Files is produced and hosted by me, Andrea Dunlop. Our editor is Gre I have very strong feelings about what is and is not responsible true crime content. Maybe you've heard me make some pointed comments about the producers of a certain film. Or perhaps you've heard one of my dozen or so rants about a certain journalist whose name rhymes with Schmeichel. And if you've been with me for a while, you'll also know that getting Nobody Should Believe Me on the air was quite the roller coaster. Podcasting is just the Wild West, y'all. And these experiences are what led

me to launch my new network, True Story Media, where we are all about uplifting true crime creators, doing the work and making thoughtful survivor centric shows. And I could not be more thrilled to announce our very first creator partner. You probably think this story is about you. The first season of this enthralling show from breakout creator Brittany Ard took podcasting by storm in 2024. Zooming to the number one spot in the charts on Apple and Spotify as Brittany revealed the captivating story of a romantic deception that upended her life and traced the roots of her own complicated personal history that led her there. Brittany is back in 2025 with brand new episodes, this time helping others tell their own stories

of betrayal, heartache, and resilience. If you love Nobody Should Believe Me, I think you will also love You Probably Think This Story's About You for its themes of deception, complex family intrigue, and its raw, vulnerable storytelling. You can binge the full first season and listen to brand new episodes each week by following the show on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find it at the link in our show notes.